Please pray for the conversion of poor, ignorant Tony Thorne.

Willful ignorance, indeed. The man is to be pitied, as are all those millions like him.


 If this newsletter  was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page.   Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,
The Genesis and Evolution Conferencewas a huge success.  Speakers gave talks on Young Earth, Old Earth, and Evolutionary Creationism - from the scientific perspective one night and from a theological perspective the next night.  All the feedback I received from attendees was exceedingly positive.  I hope to have DVD's and CD's available within a couple of weeks.  Currently working on adding a DVD page to the website through which we will offer several different DVD's.  I'll let you know once everything is up and running...

Introduction

      Okay, continuing my dialogue with anti-Catholic Tony Thorne (see previous newsletters: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter).  This week I will be answering the responses he made to the first 5 of the 10 points that I made in last week's newsletter regarding chapter 3 of Romans.  I'm going to post each of my initial points, then his response to those points, and then my reply to him.  Next week I will address his responses to my other 5 points, and then give a little summary of the conversation and the points I was trying to make with it.   

Challenge/Response/Strategy

John Martignoni

Tony, oh how I disagree with thee, let me count the ways:
#1: You said in your response, “I believe what the verse [Romans 3:11] means in context...” Well, sorry, but I’m not interested in what you “believe” the verse means. Your “belief” could be wrong. What authority do you have to tell me what a passage of Scripture means that I should believe your interpretation? None. So, I believe your interpretation is wrong. We have already established that your interpretations of the Bible are not infallible, so will you admit that this interpretation of yours could be wrong? And, if it could be wrong, then why should I believe your interpretation vs. the very clear meaning of the passage as it is written?


Tony Thorne

     I'm sorry, I should have said I know what Romans 3:11 means, because the bible explains it clearly. Here, allow me to help you. Psalm 14:2–3, which pictures God searching in vain for even one heart that seeks Him: v.2 “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” This passage is quoted in Romans 3:10–12, which says, “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.’”

     Even our best efforts fall far short of the righteousness required by God for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, .as stated in (Romans 3:23). That’s why Scripture says that no one seeks God! We seek fulfillment. We seek pleasure. We seek escape from pain. But the pure motivation of seeking after God for Himself is a gift from God. We are not saved because we had the wisdom and insight to exercise our own faith and trust God. No one wakes up one day and, on his own, decides to seek God. That would be a salvation by our own works, and Scripture is clear: we are saved only by the grace and mercy of God (Titus 3:5; he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

     Romans 11:6) says,. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. We are saved when God touches our hearts and prompts us to use the faith He gives to receive His gift of salvation. But, Even with the knowledge of God’s existence everywhere, people naturally choose to “suppress the truth by their wickedness” Contextually, I found Romans 1:18-20 quite relevant to a narcissistic believer (like you john) who ever thought he had earned his way. Romans 1:18-20 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. When we speak of the Word of God, it is different from any other writings, both past and present. Other writings, no matter how religious, truthful, or filled with inspiring anecdotes are only the product of man not God. I allude to (2Pe 1:20-21). 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


John Martignoni

       First of all, Tony, I notice that you did not answer my question: “What authority do you have to tell me what a passage of Scripture means that I should believe your interpretation?”  Since you didn’t answer, I will answer for you: NONE.  You have absolutely no authority to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what this or any verse of Scripture means.  

       Secondly, I notice that you seemed to have changed your mind about being infallible when it comes to your interpretations of the Bible.  In an earlier response  you said that you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture; yet, here you pretty much state that you are infallible in your interpretation of Scripture - “I know what Romans 3:11 means.”  I call that being fallible in theory, but infallible in practice.  Do you wish to claim, Tony, that your interpretation of Romans 3:11 is indeed infallible?  

       Thirdly, you quote to me from Psalm 14, as if I had never heard of it, yet I have already quoted from it in an earlier response to you (see point #6 of my previous response).  What I find exceedingly interesting, though, Tony, is that you left out verse 1 of Psalm 14.  Why did you do that?  I’ll tell you why, because you are trying to prove that Romans 3:23 - which says that “all” have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - means absolutely all human beings.  So, you want Psalm 14, which is being quoted from in Romans 3, to reflect your absolutist interpretation.  You stated, “ Psalm 14:2–3, which pictures God searching in vain for even one heart that seeks Him.”  If God is searching “in vain” for even “one heart” that seeks Him, Tony, then why does Psalm 14 go on to talk about “My people” and the “generation of the righteous,” if there are none that are righteous?  And are God’s people those who say there is not God?

       No, Tony, you left out verse 1 on purpose because it tells us that God is not, in fact, talking about absolutely all men here.  Verse 1 says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’  They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good.”  The “none” here, Tony, is referring to the fools who say there is no God, and not to absolutely all men.  And, in verse 4, God refers to them as “evildoers” who are opposed to God’s people.  So, “all," in this context, is not an absolute in terms of all mankind, as it is referring to those who say there is no God.  By leaving out verse 1, you have badly, and apparently deliberately, misconstrued the entire context of the passage. 

       And if you have misinterpreted the Old Testament passage that is quoted in a New Testament passage, then more than likely you have misinterpreted the New Testament passage as well - as you have.  Again, the context of Romans 3 is the Jews vs. the Greeks, or the Gentiles.  Verse 9 even asks, “Are Jews any better off?”  Verses 19-21 go on to talk about the Old Testament law and the works of the law, which is the foundation upon which many of the observant Jews thought they were not sinners, but that the Greeks were.  That is why Paul is essentially saying, in verses 10-18 and 22-23, “Jews, as a group,  are no better off than the Gentiles, as a group.  Both are under the power of sin.”  The context is not an absolute in regard to every single human having committed a personal sin.  

       In Matthew 3, Tony, it says that “all” of Judea and “all” of the areas around the Jordan river came out to see John the Baptist  and that they were baptized by him.  Does “all” here mean every single person in Judea and the areas around the Jordan were baptized by John the Baptist?  Yes or no?

       Now, a few last points here.  Regarding all of the Scripture verses you quote, Titus 3:5-7 (which is referring to Baptism, by the way), Rom 11:6, Rom 11:18-20 (not Romans 1), and 2 Peter 1:20-21...I agree with all of those verses.  As a Catholic, I agree with every single verse of the Bible.  I don't, however, necessarily agree with your admittedly fallible, man-made, non-authoritative private interpretations of those verses.  By the way, I hope you don't believe in once saved always saved (eternal security), because Romans 11:17-22 absolutely destroys that false doctrine.  And, regarding your belief in salvation by faith alone, "Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?"

       Finally, you stated, " We are saved when God touches our hearts and prompts us to use the faith He gives to receive His gift of salvation."  Could you give me the Bible passage you quoted from for that?  Or was that from you? 

John Martignoni

#2: So, according to Tony Thorne, the word “seek” doesn’t really mean “seek”? And, instead of saying, “no one understands, no one seeks for God,” the English translation of Romans 3:11 should have said, “Man is unable to comprehend the truth of God or grasp his standard of righteousness.” Which means that the translators of the King James Bible, the New International Bible, the Revised Standard Version Bible, the Geneva Bible, the American Standard Version Bible, the Darby Bible, the Wycliffe Bible, and pretty much every other major Protestant English translation of the Bible gave us a translation of God’s Word that we can’t trust? After all, they all missed the translation that Tony Thorne came up with.

Tony Thorne

I have answered question 2 and question 3 with my response to question 1.

John Martignoni

Uhmm...no, you didn't.  You stated that the phrase, "No one seeks for God," means that man cannot understand the truth of God.  Well, if that is the case, why didn't the English translation just say that?  You want to know why?  Because that is not what it means.  If it did mean that, then why bother reading the Bible?  I mean, if the Bible contains the truth of God, but we can't understand the truth of God, then why bother reading the Bible?  Your interpretation is a nonsensical one.

Hee-hee. (Sorry.)


John Martignoni

#3: You stated, “ When you look up the greek word for seek, ( zetéo) you will find in its semantic range, the meaning, get to the bottom of.” So, one possible meaning of the Greek word, “zeteo,” which is translated “seek” in Romans 3:11, is “get to the bottom of.” Well, that’s all nice and everything, but there is a problem. Where does the Bible ever translate the Greek word, “zeteo,” as “get to the bottom of”? It’s one thing for that to be a “possible” meaning of the word - in its “semantic range” - but it’s another thing for the translators of the Bible to actually use that particular meaning of the word in their translations. And, in this case, they don’t! In the King James Bible (which is Protestant), the Greek word “zeteo” is translated as “seek” exactly 100 times. I can find no translation of the word as “get to the bottom of.” So, even though the word can possibly, in some instances, be translated “get to the bottom of,” (according to you) it is never translated that way in the Bible. So your point is completely and totally irrelevant, unless you believe all the English translators of the Bible to be wrong.


Tony Thorne

wrong, as I have explained in my answer to your first question.


John Martignoni

Uhmmm...once again...no, you didn't.  The phrase, "Get to the bottom of" (please note the quotation marks), nowhere appears in the Bible, at least, not that I can find.  Please give me the book, chapter, and verse where it is translated that way.  In other words, nowhere does the Bible translate the Greek word, "zeteo," as "get to the bottom of."  You state things that are flat out untrue, Tony. 

Ouch! The truth hurts, but it shall set ye free. If, that is, ye recognize the truth that is right in front of you.


John Martignoni

#4: To use your logic, when you look up the Greek word for “all,” (pas), you will find in its semantic range the meaning, “all manner of.” Which means, Romans 3:23 does not really mean “all” as in every single person, it means “all manner of.” So, I could translate Romans 3:23, using your logic, as “For all manner have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In context, Paul is talking about Jew vs. Greek - “Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” (Romans 3:9). When Paul uses the word “all” here, he is not talking about individuals, he is showing that Jews - as a group - are no better than the Greeks when it comes to sin. So it seems my interpretation is in line at this point. Which means, the word “all” does not necessarily refer to Mary as having sinned. And, the Bible actually translates the word “pas” in this manner - 11 times! Versus translating the word “zeteo” as “get to the bottom of,” 0 times!


Tony Thorne

Yes, it really means All! Nice try though. Sorry Mary.


John Martignoni

Well, that's a particularly brilliant come back, now isn't it?  I suppose the proper response should be, "No it doesn't!"  Here's the thing, Tony, you want to be able to take some obscure definition of a Greek word - a definition that is nowhere used in the Bible for that word - and apply it to your fallible interpretation so as to fit your pre-determined doctrines.  But, if I want to take a less obscure definition of a different Greek word - a definition which is actually used several places in the Bible - and apply it to my interpretation of the Bible, then you reject it.  Why?  Because it doesn't fit your fallible interpretation and your pre-determined doctrine.  You are very inconsistent, Tony.  So, again, I have to ask, what authority do you have to tell me I'm wrong and that you are right?  And, are you infallible in saying your interpretation is right and mine is wrong?


John is a very patient man. I admire him for that, among many other things.


John Martignoni

#5: Yes, the Bible tells us to seek God. So what? I never said it didn’t. That is irrelevant to the point being made. The Bible says to seek God, but it also says no one is seeking God. The Bible tells us not to sin, yet it also says people sin. And, according to your interpretation of Romans 3:23, it tells us every single person who has ever lived (Jesus as the lone exception) has sinned. So your point here is, again, absolutely irrelevant.


Tony Thorne
funny I love how you try to shrug off your stupidity so casually by lying and dismissing the fact that I was right, Because I am right!!
publish that in your news letter!


John Martignoni

I am very happy to publish your remarks in my newsletter, Tony.  If you think I am somehow afraid to let people read what you have to say, nothing could be further from the truth.  Truth doesn't fear error, Tony...error fears truth.  Besides, I think everyone should be given the opportunity to show their true colors, as Cyndi Lauper would say...

Zing! Whacked over the head by a Cyndi Lauper reference.

Closing Comments

        I didn't put in any "Strategy" comments this week, as I will save those for my closing of this "dialogue" next week.  I seriously doubt Tony will have any reply to my comments, as he has sent me a message saying, "Good-bye."  That was, of course, after saying that I was a "narcistic [sic] puke" who needed to be taken out into an alley and taught some respect.  But, even if he were to respond, I won't be answering him.  This conversation has served its purpose and I need to move on to greener pastures, as it were.

       I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year.  If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL  35127 .  Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Hey, kiddies! "Bae" is Danish for excrement.

Language is an interesting thing, no? Darn Tower of Babel...

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Evil and immoral Supreme Court decisions never die. We have to kill them.

Judge's family apologizes 160 years after Dred Scott | Fox News


ANNAPOLIS, Md. –  A family member of the chief justice who presided over the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision has apologized to the family of the slave who tried to sue for his freedom.

On Monday, the 160-year anniversary of the decision, Charles Taney IV of Greenwich, Connecticut, stood a few feet from a statue of his great-great-grand-uncle Roger Brooke Taney outside the Maryland State House and apologized for the decision, in which Roger Taney wrote that African-Americans could not have rights of their own and were inferior to white people. Roger Taney lived in Maryland.

He apologized on behalf of his family, to the Scott family and to all African-Americans, for the "terrible injustice of the Dred Scott decision."

Lynne Jackson of St. Louis, the great-great-granddaughter of Dred Scott, accepted the apology for her family and "all African-Americans who have the love of God in their heart so that healing can begin." She hopes the apology can lead to a greater reconciliation.

"It's an open door for us to say if the Scotts and the Taneys can reconcile," Jackson said. "If you look at relationships in our nation, these are supposed to be the two who are really supposed to hate each other. But it's not about hatred; it's about understanding, and then relationship-building and trust."

Jackson said she had looked forward to a meeting of the two families ever since she created The Dred Scott Heritage Foundation a decade ago. She and Taney met for the first time last year, brought together by the production of a one-act fictional play written by Charles Taney's daughter, Kate Billingsley. "A Man of His Time," tells the story of a Taney descendant meeting a Scott descendant.

Taney and Jackson were invited to participate in a "talk-back" session with the audience after the performance. They have since begun working together, with Taney, a consultant for nonprofit organizations, helping Jackson's group develop a strategic mission.

"A Taney bringing an apology to a Scott is like 'bringing a Band-Aid to an amputation,'" Taney quoted his daughter as saying.

"An apology is not enough," he said. "But it is necessary."


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005

My beloved brothers and sisters, you are murdering yourselves!

I came to Carthage, where I found myself in the midst of a hissing cauldron of lusts. I had not yet fallen in love, but I was in love with the idea of it, and this feeling that something was missing made me despise myself for not being more anxious to satisfy the need. I began to look around for some object for my love, since I badly wanted to love something.

 — St. Augustine, Confessions

All pink emphasis below is mine - F.G.


[PDF] (GLMA) Guidelines for Care of Lesbian, Gay ... - UCF Safe Zone




Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) Guidelines for Care of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients

The GLMA is a national organization committed to ensuring  equality in health care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals and health care professionals. GLMA achieves its goals by using  medical expertise in professional education, public policy work, patient education and referrals, and the promotion of research. 

www.glma.org   

Chapter 1: Creating a Welcoming Clinical Environment for LGBT Patients

Background

o While having the same basic health needs as the general population, LGBT populations experience health disparities and barriers related to sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression.

o Fear of homophobia in a physician’s office can keep LGBT individuals from seeking treatment or from revealing information that may be pertinent to their health.

  o Developing rapport and trust is crucial


Definitions

ƒ LGBT: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual ƒ Transgender – an individual who identifies as a gender other than their anatomic gender, this does not imply sexual orientation. ƒ

Transsexual – a person who desires to change/ is in the process of changing/ or has changed their gender from their assigned gender. ƒ Emphasize that the patient-provider discussion is confidential 

Specific Health Concerns

o Depression, stress and anxiety are more prevalent in LGBT individuals due to phobias, harassment, discrimination and isolation. ƒ

This causes an increased incidence of suicide in the LGBT community.


     Right here.

     Please consider the following point, for it is inspired by nothing but love for you:

     This document just declared that the "increased incidence of suicide in the LGBT community" is caused by "phobias, harassment, discrimination and isolation". Please read all the other pink highlighted sentences in this post and add them together. Then seriously consider if this higher rate of suicide is truly the fault of others.



Be sure to screen patients for depression and other mental health issues. ƒ

Explore the social support network of patients—one’s level of identification with community strongly correlates with decreased risk for STDs and improved mental health

o Increased stress levels can translate into increase in tobacco, alcohol or drug use.

  o Ask all patients about intimate partner violence (IPV)

o Be knowledgeable about safer sex practices as they relate to LGBT individuals, also be able to answer questions about STD transmission rates which differ based on various sexual practices.

o Do not assume lesbian patients have never had male sexual partners, are not at risk for STDs or do not have children. Do not make similar assumptions for other LGBT individuals.  In short, do not make assumptions about past, current, and future sexual behavior.

o The CDC recommends that men who have sex with men be vaccinated against hepatitis A and B and receive yearly syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia and HIV screening.  ƒ In addition gay and bisexual men may be at increased risk for anal cancer which is associated with HPV infection.

o Not all transsexual individuals have the means to undergo gender reassignment, an expensive process. 

ƒ Ask about hormone use, which has been prescribed or obtained on the black market. ƒ Ask about procedures that may have been completed as part of gender transformation.

o Use respectful language—listen to your patients and how they describe their own sexual orientation, partners, and relationships o Circulate these guidelines to all administrative, nursing, clinical staff...

NEVER fall for the fascist lie that you are a helpless victim. NEVER. You are a child of God, created in His image with free will. YOU control your destiny. YOU decide how you live and how you die.

I know this is terrifying. It is much easier to blame anybody [everybody!] for your problems. THIS is what fascists of all stripes, both left and right, exploit:. WEAKNESS! Yes, freedom and responsibility are scary, but they are preferable to SLAVERY.

YOU WERE BORN TO BE FREE. DARE TO LIVE THAT WAY!


Keep a truly open mind and notice the pervasive victim frame of reference at the link below. Is this you? Are these your friends and loved ones?

From www.shareourtomorrow.org/:

LGBT Hopes, Ideas & Fears - What's next for the LGBT community?

You Spoke.
We Listened.

Explore the insights from nearly 15,000 hopes, fears and ideas for the future shared by LGBTQ people across the country.

What about the following matter-of-factly presented horrific facts from Boulder, CO?

Fight For LGBTQ Rights - The Community Foundation‎

Open Door Fund

The Community Foundation’s Open Door Fund enhances the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) people in Boulder County.

From seniors to youth, our LGBTQ community faces persistent challenges. For example,

LGBTQ older adults are less likely than heterosexual elders to have children to look after them as they age – and they’re more likely to live alone.

And according to our TRENDS Report,

LGBTQ high schoolers report higher rates of dating violence, including sexual assault, than their straight peers.

In addition, LGBTQ youth are bullied to a much greater degree (30%) than heterosexual teens (17%), and are significantly more likely to contemplate and attempt suicide.

In response, the Open Door Fund, a permanent endowment of the Community Foundation, aims to support the strengths and needs of the LGBTQ population throughout the county in three ways: by building community, by facilitating collaboration and dialogue between our LGBTQ community and the county, and through fundraising and grantmaking.

"Fundraising and grantmaking". Yep, people always look to those sorts of things in order to save their lives.

YOU WERE BORN TO BE FREE. DARE TO LIVE THAT WAY!

YOU ARE LOVED BY LOVE HIMSELF. DO YOU DARE TO REALLY LOVE?

Part 1: SEX IS DEATH. (Stories for boys) is here.
Part 2: SEX IS DEATH. (Distaff death) is here.
Part 3: SEX IS DEATH. (Joyously dispensing death) is here.
Part 4: SEX IS DEATH. (Sex is depression) is here.
Part 5: SEX IS DEATH. (When self-pleasuring becomes self-destruction) is here.
Part 6: SEX IS DEATH. (Sex is theft) is here.
Part 7: SEX IS DEATH. (A review of Bareback Mountain) is here.
Part 8: SEX IS DEATH. (What is the ultimate penalty?) is here.
Part 9: SEX IS DEATH. (Haven from reality) is here.
Part 10: SEX IS DEATH. (Sin-redemption-reasons-reason) is here.
Part 11: SEX IS DEATH. (Mommy loves you) is here.
Part 12: SEX IS DEATH. (George Gilder offers a clue) is here.
Part 13: SEX IS DEATH. (Post-killem depression) is here.
Part 14: SEX IS DEATH. (Whither womanhood) is here.
Part 15: SEX IS DEATH. (Saving psychology 1) is here.
Part 16: SEX IS DEATH. (Saving psychology 2) is here.
Part 17: SEX IS DEATH. (Fear of the boomers) is here.
Part 18: SEX IS DEATH. (The battle continues apace) is here.
Part 19: SEX IS DEATH. (Hot for teacher) is here.
Part 20: SEX IS DEATH. (Kids do the darndest things) is here.
Part 21: SEX IS DEATH. (Defects) is here.
Part 22: SEX IS DEATH. (Privates' privacy) is here.
Part 23: SEX IS DEATH. (National Condom Week) is here.
Part 24: SEX IS DEATH. (Wegenics) is here.
Part 25: SEX IS DEATH. (White wedding) is here.
Part 26: SEX IS DEATH. (Literally) is here.
Part 27: SEX IS DEATH. (Can't get me no satisfaction) is here.
Part 28: SEX IS DEATH. (Wrestle with mania) is here.
Part 29: SEX IS DEATH. (Press one for death/Presione uno para la muerte) is here.
Part 30: SEX IS DEATH. (Raunch culture) is here.
Part 31: SEX IS DEATH. (Gimme some of that sweet zombie lovin') is here.
Part 32: SEX IS DEATH. (The devil made me eat my baby) is here.
Part 33: SEX IS DEATH. (Mind control = womb control) is here.
Part 34: SEX IS DEATH. (The expense of playing with yourself) is here.
Part 35: SEX IS DEATH. (You can't always get what you want) is here.
Part 36: SEX IS DEATH. (Whom does a master serve?) is here.
Part 37: SEX IS DEATH. (Shootin' 5 for 8) is here.
Part 38: SEX IS DEATH. (Being a never-wed mom of four and an illegal alien is no picnic either) is here.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

"A Day Without Communist Women" brings joy, beauty, and light to a beleagured America. Viagra stock plummets.

Yes, kiddies, for twenty-four glorious hours grotesque left-fascist caricatures of women vacated our schools, shops, and offices in a silly attempt to demonstrate their "power". All men rejoiced, singing and dancing and high-fiving their brethren. Real women came out of hiding for they were temporarily unafraid of being accused of heresy. And last but certainly not least, non-drug aided erections flourished...

Then the sun set and the harpies returned to vex us again.

'Day Without a Woman' leaves parents scrambling for childcare - CNN ...

www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/us/day-without-woman-2017-schools/

'Day Without a Woman' strike puts some parents in a bind amid school closures. ... A woman chants at the Women's March on Washington. ... But many are complaining that "A Day Without a Woman" will leave many women in a bind.

'A Day Without Women': Who are the women who won't be marching ...

www.foxnews.com/.../day-without-women-who-are-women-who-wont-be-marching.ht...

Like millions of other American women, A Day Without Women will be a day like any other. I will rise, exercise, and shower. I will happily see to ...

'Day Without Women' Was A Bit Of A Bust. Here Were Its Worst Misfires

thefederalist.com/2017/03/09/day-without-womens-worst-misfires/

Striking from smiling, hurting the poor, and suppressing male authors

were some of the genius ideas of 'Day Without Women' activists.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

THE METAPHOR ALERT FOR THE PREVIOUS POST HAS BEEN LIFTED. MOVE ALONG, THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

The limbo contest has been cancelled.

It's just a metaphor, and probably not a very good one, but it's the only one that might get through to today's attention span deprived kiddies.

    [In case you were wondering, here's a link to "metaphor". Do people still wonder, kiddies? Do they ponder? I know that wondering and pondering and other antisocial behaviors are officially frowned upon, but it has always been this way. I don't blame any man for shutting his mouth and locking down his imagination in public. He could be ridiculed, fired, or even killed.

     But what about privately? Do people take Jesus' advice on prayer and take their REAL thoughts and concerns to a closed room in their home where only the Father can hear? Of course, in this case only your spouse might hear.

     I remember stories about people enslaved in the USSR and eastern Europe who had to keep up two personas, a public one that was meek, submissive, and obedient and a private one that was true to who they really were. The psychological toll of this was devastating. Is this the price we must pay for civilization? Did cavemen have to lie to each other outside the cave to avoid being murdered? I know Rousseau's answer, what with his noble savages and what not. (Even though he never used that term.) But he was a real dumbass.

     Yes, gadflies are a real pain in the ass, but not having ANYONE question ANYTHING is surely worse. Remember, kiddies, old Socrates was much smarter than Rousseau.

     So endeth today's first digression. It seems to be a very inconclusive one. I am not certain I should apologize for that...]

     Back to my imperfect metaphor of the limbo contest. (I'm going to assume...never mind. Time is short and every man is ultimately responsible for himself.)

     The Limbo Contest has been cancelled because the bar is too damn low and nobody is able or even willing to raise it. Not a single soul can physically, metaphysically, morally, or spiritually get under that bar. That much is certain.

     What is less certain is how America's bar got to be so low. I have dear friends who sincerely believe themselves to be "conservative" and yet they not only voted for A Cockjerk Orange, but believe it is their "Christian" duty to support this perverse madman no matter what it says or does.

     I'm being kind. They actually think it is the ONE CHOSEN BY GOD. If they mean it is like Attila, the scourge of God, well, yeah, I get that. But that is not what they mean.


 I'm pretty sure they don't teach such things in schools these days. At least you kiddies know Hannibal was from Africa. I suppose that is better than nothing. St. Augustine of Hippo? Nary a mention.

I have just stopped myself from swerving into Digression #2. Call it 1 1/2.

The False Conservatives, the Clumpskyites, and the Establishment have joined forces to drum into the heads of We The Sheeple (You know, their moral and intellectual inferiors.) that at least IT ISN'T HER. Oh, joy! Our limbo stick is now in the dirt and every fascist, creep, kleptocrat, pervert, vainglorious moron, psychopath, sociopath, and wannabe god or goddess is now legitimately considered leadership material.

This is what happens when you lower your bar into the muck, kiddies.

What to do, what to do, what to do...

I know what your ol' Uncle Fyodor's going to do, but let's talk about your options, kiddies.

The most important thing is to distract your soul (and conscience) so they don't notice you have given up and don't give a damn about how low your bar is. Reading Winnie The Pooh stories is an excellent choice if you are a good kiddie. If you are a bad kiddie, you are probably too busy masturbating (or its digital {Hee-hee. Get it?} equivalent, social media, to be reading this in the first place.

"But Fyodor, those things won't raise the bar."


No duh.

Civilizations that drop their bars into the shit don't ever pick them up. Those civilizations die and often quite horrifically. If you care to read about this, there are oodles of books on...

Hee-hee. I am a silly fellow indeed.

Kiss your wives and kids goodnight and tell them all is well.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

METAPHOR ALERT! THE FOLLOWING POST CONTAINS A METAPHOR.PROCEED WITH CAUTION.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

A Day Without Women: A blessing and a curse.

First of all, real women go to work because they love their families and, if they are lucky, because they love their jobs. They don't screech in small groups in front of TV cameras.

All seriousness aside, the good news is we get to watch sports all day and all night fellas.

The bad news? They're probably shoe shopping and maxing out the Visa card.

TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

Guess what happens when clueless false conservatives vote right-fascist in order to "win"...

Why, you get fascism, of course.

Suckers.



Read exactly what's included in GOP's health care bill - KCRA.com

WASHINGTON (AP) - 

Republican leaders embarked on an ambitious plan Tuesday to try to sell their new health care proposal to rank-and-file lawmakers and the public, absent specifics on costs or how many Americans will be covered.



President Donald Trump's early morning tweet praising "our wonderful new Healthcare Bill" started off the day, and GOP leaders planned a news conference to promote the plan ahead of Wednesday's committee action.

The new bill aims to replace "Obamacare" with a system designed along conservative lines...

Ha! This is pure Repansycanism, kiddies. Know nothing, do nothing, and hope the suckers out there are too busy masturbating to notice. The only way you can call it "conservative" is by comparing it to the full-on socialized "medicine" it supposedly replaces.

Creeping socialism is still socialism, dumbass.

I know you imbeciles who voted for this lame-brained pervert will never apologize to those of us who smelled a big government lying-ass rat from the beginning. The question is this: Will you have the stones to beg for the forgiveness of your children and grandchildren?


Click here to read the full health care act


Oh, yeah. Did you notice how the Repansycans are crowing about "allowing" the American people to read the bill before they vote on it? How pathetically low the bar is now in our former republic...


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.

John Martignoni ontinues his battle against the willful ignorance of a poor benighted heretic.

Yes, willful ignorance does exist. Invincible ignorance does not. That is why the fight is always worthwhile.




Okay, continuing with my dialogue with anti-Catholic Tony Thorne (see previous newsletters:  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/379-dealing-with-an-anti-catholic and http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/381-dealing-with-an-anti-catholic-cont-d). 

This week has little analysis from me, as it is more of a setup for the next two weeks.  I wanted to give you his responses - both the first and the second ones (as you'll see) - to the 10 points I made in last week's newsletter, and then dissect his responses in the next two newsletters.  That way, no one newsletter will get too long and cumbersome (at least, that's the goal). 

       So, I am going to start off with the response of his that I ended with in last week's newsletter and go from there...         

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Tony Thorne:

     It seems you do not remember much of what you say, but I had copied and pasted your whimsical understanding of scripture, that I might negate your denial. And here it is, verbatim….You said,

     “Now, in an earlier post, I asked you if you were "seeking God." You said you were. Well, that is contrary to the Bible, at least, according to your interpretation of the Bible, because in Romans 3:11, it states the following: "No one seeks for God." If "all have sinned" means that everyone, without human exception, has sinned, then "No one seeks for God," means that no one, without human exception, seeks for God. Yet, you say that you do seek for God. Which means one of the following must be true: 1) You were wrong and you do not seek for God in your life; or 2) You think the Bible is wrong when it says "No one seeks for God." Which is it? Are you not seeking for God in your life, or do you believe the Bible is wrong when it says "No one" seeks for God?”

     Clearly you were excerpting my foolishness in suggesting the Bible does not tell us to seek God. You say it’s not relevant, but when we are talking about knowledge of scripture, and you say I am wrong for saying the Bible tells us to seek God, when over and over again, it does, and somehow you have found only one verse that says not true. So one verse contradicts all other verses. Hermeneutics, which you admit to not having a degree in teaches the opposite. My interpretation, contrary to the mindless, makes far greater sense than yours. You who said the Bible never tells us to seek God.

     Where does the Bible ever translate the Greek word, “zeteo,” as “get to the bottom of”? Romans 3:11 John. It’s one thing for that to be a “possible” meaning of the word - in its “semantic range” - but it’s another thing for the translators of the Bible to actually use that particular meaning of the word in their translations. And, in this case, they don’t! Wrong John!! In the King James Bible (which is Protestant), the Greek word “zeteo” is translated as “seek” exactly 100 times. Nothing like contradicting yourself John. Coming from a guy who tried to say the Bible doesn’t tell us to seek God? hmmm. You have lost all credibility John.

     So, your answer to where in the Bible does it say Mary was sinless is: “I believe Mary was sinless her entire life because the Church founded by Jesus Christ - and guided by the Holy Spirit - which is the pillar and ground of the truth, tells me so. And, the Word of God supports that teaching 100%.” Sorry John, but this is not a sufficient answer. All you are saying is you believe the Bible says Mary was sinless, but you have still failed to reveal scripture to prove that blasphemes nonsense. Quite honestly john, you seem to be a man that has difficulty with reading comprehension and you don’t seem to remember things you say, like the bible tells us not to seek God. You actually attempted to belittle me because I said the Bible says to seek God. But, unlike you I provide scripture, and still you can’t admit to your own fallibility. I'm leaving you with some more verses that prove you wrong...

    [Here Tony put in a dozen or so verses about seeking the Lord, which are not necessary to reprint as they lead to nowhere.  His point, of course, was that the Bible tells us to seek God.  In other words, for some reason he thinks I am arguing that the Bible doesn't tell us to seek God, which I never did.  He is either incapable of, or unwilling to, actually understand the arguments I'm making.]

Maybe willful, maybe not, but the man's ignorance is profound. This is what happens to people who are taught falsehood as truth their entire lives and have shuttered minds and hardened hearts.

John Martignoni:

     Wow! Talk about a rambling "argument." That, and the rest of what you had to say, was tough to make sense of. Do me, and all the folks following this exchange, a favor, Tony, and re-post your arguments, but do so by hitting "Reply" underneath the individual points that I made, #1 - #10, so I know exactly what part of your response corresponds to each one of my arguments. I'm not asking you to re-type anything, just copy and paste. That way I'll be able to tell which of the 10 points you responded to and which you did not respond to, and which part of your argument goes where. Plus, it will help organize the discussion moving forward. Thanks!

      By the way, just one quick point, I do indeed believe the Bible tells us to seek God - nowhere have I said otherwise. What I said was, your absolutist interpretation of Romans 3:11-23, makes the Bible say absolutely no one seeks God just as you believe it says absolutely no one is without sin. If "all" means absolutely everyone, then "no one" means absolutely no one. You can't have it both ways. That's bad hermeneutics. Furthermore, I never said that anything about whether or not I have a "degree in hermeneutics."  You keep assuming things about what I say, as well as misunderstanding and misinterpreting things that I say.  If you do that with human words, how much more likely are you to do that with the Word of God?

Strategy

My strategy here was to simply get him to clean up his arguments so that they were a bit more coherent and so I can better correlate what he says to what I actually argued.  It's difficult to argue with someone when you can't make sense of what they're saying.  And it was an attempt to get him to focus on what I was actually saying and reply point-by-point.  Also, I wanted to give him a simple summary of my argument about "all" and "no one" as he simply did not appear to be able to understand it, or wasn't reading very carefully, or something...but he just wasn't getting it (maybe on purpose, who knows).  His reply was, well, less than nice, as you'll see below:

Tony Thorne:

Thats what I think of you john. In india, I gave multiple messages, and thousands of hindus and muslim excepted christ as there lord and savior. so your opinion means nothing.
And you made me loath the catholic religion even more!

John Martignoni:

     Well, talk about an air tight, logical, and rational argument! How could I possibly argue with that, after all, my opinion means nothing?  You know, though, somehow I have trouble believing that thousands of Hindus and Muslims converted because of Tony.  If there is any way that is true, I just hope and pray they somehow get led to the fullness of the truth, and not settle for his stunted version of Christianity. 

     I did not respond to that comment, as I it was obvious to me that his initial "apology" for how he presented himself - calling me, and others, all sorts of names and making all sorts of rude comments - was something that, while maybe heartfelt when he made it, was only so on a very temporary basis.  It was also obvious that he was exceedingly frustrated and it would be of no use to pursue an argument with someone who either could not, or deliberately would not, understand and respond directly to my arguments.  I was curious, though, as to how he could "loath" [sic] the "catholic religion" more, since he had already stated that he thought of it as a satanic cult that hated the Word of God and worshipped Mary before Jesus.  How do you get lower than being a satanic cult and hating the Word of God?  But, I decided not to ask. 

     Anyway, that is how I thought it would end.  But, a couple of weeks later, he came back to the FB page and slipped in some responses, such as they were.  You know the old adage, "Better late than never?"  Well, it's not always true.  Anyway, I am going to repeat the 10 point response that I gave to him in my last newsletter - http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/381-dealing-with-an-anti-catholic-cont-d- and give you his belated 2nd response to them and, once again, let you ponder on what he had to say for a week.  Then, as I said above, in the next two newsletters I will take apart his responses piece by piece and that will probably be that for my dialogue with Tony Thorne, as it is all too apparent that his anger and hatred towards all things Catholic preclude him from having an honest, level-headed, and adult conversation about these things.  The only reason I went on with him as long as I have, is because we had an audience (the folks on Facebook) and I wanted them - Catholic and non-Catholic alike - to see how completely void of content and logic and consistency his arguments are, and to also see one approach to making an argument against the belief that Mary committed sin.  So, here we go:

John Martignoni:

Tony, oh how I disagree with thee, let me count the ways:
#1: You said in your response, “I believe what the verse means in context...” Well, sorry, but I’m not interested in what you “believe” the verse means. Your “belief” could be wrong. What authority do you have to tell me what a passage of Scripture means that I should believe your interpretation? None. So, I believe your interpretation is wrong. We have already established that your interpretations of the Bible are not infallible, so will you admit that this interpretation of yours could be wrong? And, if it could be wrong, then why should I believe your interpretation vs. the very clear meaning of the passage as it is written?


Tony T horne:

     I'm sorry, I should have said I know what Romans 3:11 means, because the bible explains it clearly. Here, allow me to help you. Psalm 14:2–3, which pictures God searching in vain for even one heart that seeks Him: v.2 “The Lord looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” This passage is quoted in Romans 3:10–12, which says, “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God.’”

     Even our best efforts fall far short of the righteousness required by God for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, .as stated in (Romans 3:23). That’s why Scripture says that no one seeks God! We seek fulfillment. We seek pleasure. We seek escape from pain. But the pure motivation of seeking after God for Himself is a gift from God. We are not saved because we had the wisdom and insight to exercise our own faith and trust God. No one wakes up one day and, on his own, decides to seek God. That would be a salvation by our own works, and Scripture is clear: we are saved only by the grace and mercy of God (Titus 3:5; he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

     Romans 11:6) says,. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. We are saved when God touches our hearts and prompts us to use the faith He gives to receive His gift of salvation. But, Even with the knowledge of God’s existence everywhere, people naturally choose to “suppress the truth by their wickedness” Contextually, I found Romans 1:18-20 quite relevant to a narcissistic believer (like you john) who ever thought he had earned his way. Romans 1:18-20 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. When we speak of the Word of God, it is different from any other writings, both past and present. Other writings, no matter how religious, truthful, or filled with inspiring anecdotes are only the product of man not God. I allude to (2Pe 1:20-21). 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


John Martignoni:

#2: So, according to Tony Thorne, the word “seek” doesn’t really mean “seek”? And, instead of saying, “no one understands, no one seeks for God,” the English translation of Romans 3:11 should have said, “Man is unable to comprehend the truth of God or grasp his standard of righteousness.” Which means that the translators of the King James Bible, the New International Bible, the Revised Standard Version Bible, the Geneva Bible, the American Standard Version Bible, the Darby Bible, the Wycliffe Bible, and pretty much every other major Protestant English translation of the Bible gave us a translation of God’s Word that we can’t trust? After all, they all missed the translation that Tony Thorne came up with.


Tony Thorne:

I have answered question 2 and question 3 with my response to question 1.


John Martignoni:

#3: You stated, “When you look up the greek word for seek, ( zetéo) you will find in its semantic range, the meaning, get to the bottom of.” So, one possible meaning of the Greek word, “zeteo,” which is translated “seek” in Romans 3:11, is “get to the bottom of.” Well, that’s all nice and everything, but there is a problem. Where does the Bible ever translate the Greek word, “zeteo,” as “get to the bottom of”? It’s one thing for that to be a “possible” meaning of the word - in its “semantic range” - but it’s another thing for the translators of the Bible to actually use that particular meaning of the word in their translations. And, in this case, they don’t! In the King James Bible (which is Protestant), the Greek word “zeteo” is translated as “seek” exactly 100 times. I can find no translation of the word as “get to the bottom of.” So, even though the word can possibly, in some instances, be translated “get to the bottom of,” (according to you) it is never translated that way in the Bible. So your point is completely and totally irrelevant, unless you believe all the English translators of the Bible to be wrong.


Tony Thorne:

wrong, as I have explained in my answer to your first question.

John Martignoni:

#4: To use your logic, when you look up the Greek word for “all,” (pas), you will find in its semantic range the meaning, “all manner of.” Which means, Romans 3:23 does not really mean “all” as in every single person, it means “all manner of.” So, I could translate Romans 3:23, using your logic, as “For all manner have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” In context, Paul is talking about Jew vs. Greek - “Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin,” (Romans 3:9). When Paul uses the word “all” here, he is not talking about individuals, he is showing that Jews - as a group - are no better than the Greeks when it comes to sin. So it seems my interpretation is in line at this point. Which means, the word “all” does not necessarily refer to Mary as having sinned. And, the Bible actually translates the word “pas” in this manner - 11 times! Versus translating the word “zeteo” as “get to the bottom of,” 0 times!


Tony Thorne:

Yes, it really means All! Nice try though. Sorry Mary.

John Martignoni:

#5: Yes, the Bible tells us to seek God. So what? I never said it didn’t. That is irrelevant to the point being made. The Bible says to seek God, but it also says no one is seeking God. The Bible tells us not to sin, yet it also says people sin. And, according to your interpretation of Romans 3:23, it tells us every single person who has ever lived (Jesus as the lone exception) has sinned. So your point here is, again, absolutely irrelevant.

Tony Thorne:

funny I love how you try to shrug off your stupidity so casually by lying and dismissing the fact that I was right, Because I am right!!


John Martignoni:

#6: If you want the context of this entire passage from Romans 3, you need to look to the Old Testament so that you don’t “topicalize.” In Romans 3:10-12, Paul is quoting from Psalm 14 and/or Psalm 53. In those Psalms, Paul states there is none that do good, no not one; that “all” have gone astray; all have fallen away. So, does that mean every single person? No, because the context of Psalms 14 and 53 is that there are the evildoers, the sons of men - those who deny God - and there are the people of God, the generation of the righteous. And it is about those who deny God that the psalmist says “all” have gone astray. In other words, the Old Testament, biblical-wide context for this passage of Romans, is that the word “all” simply does not mean every single person ever. If you miss the Old Testament context of the passage, then you miss the New Testament context of the passage, which you have done.


Tony Thorne:

I gave you the context in the answer to your first rabbit trail. Remember, you are not in control here. I don't adhere to daddy johns methodology, and quite frankly I think your a terrible bible expositor.


John Martignoni:

#7: In Luke, chapter 1, verse 6, it states, “And [Elizabeth and Zechariah - John the Baptist’s parents] were both righteous before God, walking an all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” So, if Elizabeth and Zechariah were blameless in “ALL” of the Lord’s commandments and ordinances, do you contend that they had sinned?


Tony Thorne:

They were both righteous before God Not as the Pharisees, only righteous before men, but in the sight of God, who sees the heart, and whose judgment is according to truth; and therefore were not justified by the deeds of the law; for by them no man can be justified in the sight of God; but were made righteous through the righteousness of Christ, by which the saints were made righteous before the coming of Christ, as those after it: see ( Acts 15:11 ) ( Revelation 13:8 ) . God beheld them in his Son, as clothed with that righteousness he engaged to bring in, and as cleansed from all sin in that blood of his which was to be shed: and they appeared to him, and in the eye of his justice, and according to his law, righteous persons: though this character may also regard the internal holiness of their hearts, and the truth and sincerity of grace in them: which God, who trieth the hearts and reins of the children of men, knew, took notice of, and bore testimony to: as likewise their holy, upright walk and conversation before men, and which was observed by God, and acceptable to him, though imperfect, as arising from a principle of grace, being performed in the faith and fear of him, and with a view to his glory, and for the sake, and through the righteousness of his Son.


John Martignoni:

#8: John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit his entire life, even from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15). Do you contend that he sinned?


Tony Thorne:

[No response from Tony on this one.]


John Martignoni:

#9: Have babies sinned?


Tony Thorne:

We cannot simply assume that children are “innocent” and are therefore exempt from the penalties of sin. The Bible teaches clearly that infants are in a state of sin and need to be regenerated. They, like all humanity, can be saved only through Christ. Ps. 51:5 — “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” John 3:6 — “That which is born of the flesh is flesh.”

John Martignoni:

Now, #10, to answer your question about Mary in a simple and direct manner, per your request - I believe Mary was sinless her entire life because the Church founded by Jesus Christ - and guided by the Holy Spirit - which is the pillar and ground of the truth, tells me so. And, the Word of God supports that teaching 100%. You believe she sinned based on your fallible, man-made, non-authoritative, private interpretation of the Bible. Who should I believe - the Church founded by Jesus, or you?


Tony Thorne:

Again please, show me this teaching that doesn't exist!


John Martignoni:

I'll treat with his first 5 responses, or lack thereof, in the next newsletter, and then #6 - #10 in the following newsletter. 

Closing Comments

I hope this Lenten season is one of great growth - or even just a little bit of growth - in holiness for each of you.  I will be keeping all of you in my prayers - as will my wife and kids - please keep us in yours.  Thanks!


 If this newsletter  was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to  http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. 


TheChurchMilitant: Sometimes anti-social, but always anti-fascist since 2005.